From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 02:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Contents 1 Involved parties 1.1 Complaining witness 1.2 Nominal defendant 2 Brief statement of issues 3 Statement by Ecemaml 4 Statement by Gibraltarian 5 Statements by outside parties 5.1 Statement by uninvolved party Dmcdevit 5.2 Statement by uninvolved party Woohookitty 5.3 Statement by uninvolved party FayssalF 6 Preliminary decisions 6.1 Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0) 6.2 Temporary injunction (none) 7 Final decision 7.1 Principles 7.1.1 Disruptive editors may be banned 7.1.2 No personal attacks 7.2 Findings of fact 7.2.1 Locus of dispute 7.2.2 Contestants 7.2.3 Point of view editing by Gibraltrian 7.2.4 Personal attacks by Gibraltarian 7.2.5 Gibraltarian blocked indefinitely 7.2.6 Sockpuppets 7.2.7 Affected articles 7.2.8 Misuse of Arbitration-only pages 7.3 Remedies 7.3.1 Gibraltarian placed on personal attack parole 7.3.2 Gibraltarian placed on probation 7.3.3 Gibraltarian placed on general Probation 7.3.4 No action on indefinite block 7.3.5 Sockpuppets 7.4 Enforcement 7.4.1 Enforcement by block 7.5 Log of blocks and bans

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Complaining witness

• Ecemaml (talk • contribs)

[edit] Nominal defendant

• Gibraltarian (talk • contribs)

[edit] Brief statement of issues

Strong disagreement in Gibraltar-related articles. Mainly Disputed status of Gibraltar (main discussion in Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar) and History of Gibraltar

[edit] Statement by Ecemaml

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Gibraltarian, aside from refusing to take part in the dispute resolution process, has kept up his personal attacks against me.

The following are what I consider a handful of violations of policies and guidelines:

• Violation of 3RR policy. Two "takes" of 3RR violations have been performed by Gibraltarian. The most serious was this one: History of Gibraltar was reverted up to eleven times in five days. He didn't provide any reason even if the version he reverted to was different each time (I kept on adding new information).
• Violation of "No personal attacks" policy. The history of History of Gibraltar is full of insults in the labels of editions. Similar attacks can be found on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar/1 andTalk:Disputed status of Gibraltar
• Misunderstanding of NPOV. I think that this is the underlying source of the dispute. Compare WP is NOT a discussion forum, and an article about a country, territory or city should be simply information about it, presented in a neutral fashion. Sometimes alternative POV's on an issue can be presented, but most of the time it is quite possible to word something from a neutral viewpoint without being at all controversial [1] with First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them (from NPOV). Here, Gibraltarian doesn't even allow POVs other than his (providing that, of course, he defines what is neutral).
• Refusal to provide sources. I've done an extensive research that can be seen on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar, Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar/1#Disagreements, and in the alternative versions that Gibraltarian insists in removing (History of Gibraltar/temp or Disputed status of Gibraltar/temp). I'm open to provide additional sources if needed or if the ones currently provided are not considered reliable enough. But it's difficult to know what to do when the other party just says to support his reversions and statements: "I have no need to "justify" anything to an obsessed troll" (labeled in this version) and the like.

• Gibraltarian has also accused the administrator in charge of the mediation of being biased: What a coincidence, the Ecemaml troll was allowed to make his revert just before the protection.....how nice for him. HASN'T IT SUNK IN YET?? THAT WAS HIS INTENTION ALL ALONG, AND YOU HAVE FALLEN INTO HIS TRAP! He is a troll! [2], misunderstanding what protection is.

I've proposed a step-by-step process to solve this dispute (see Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar), but it hasn't been accepted (nor rejected, just ignored).

--Ecemaml 09:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Gibraltarian

Please limit your statement to 500 words

[edit] Statements by outside parties

[edit] Statement by uninvolved party Dmcdevit

This issue has come up on RFPP repeatedly, and I think I was the one to respond first, so I'll make a note. I recommend that the arbcom accept this case to consider edit warring by both parties, as well as Gibraltarian's incivility/personal attacks (I'm in no position to be able to judge the NPOV dispute). The first time, I blocked both parties for 3RR. Nothing seems to have changed since then, despite Spangineer's valiant, but failed mediation effort. While I think Ecemaml was acting in good faith, he was is at his wit's end and resorted to indulging the edit warring. Gibraltarian, however, has insisted on making personal attacks against Ecemaml in probably every post to RFPP and in talk page discussions, calling him a "troll" at every chance (eg, this is a good example). He, as opposed to Ecemaml, seems to view edit warring as a valid means of encyclopedia writing (an extraordinarily large amount of his article edits are reverts without edit summaries). This attitude, both in edit warring and personal attacks is unacceptable, and I think is at the point where sanctions are appropriate. Dmcdevit·t 09:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by uninvolved party Woohookitty

I also have been dealing with this case on the protection page. Just a couple of observations. One is that Ecemaml is an admin on the Spanish Wikipedia. To me that just gives credance to Dmc's idea that he got into this edit warring because he felt like he had to, not for any malicious reason. What I find interesting is that Ecemaml is called a troll alot by Gibraltarian, but it's Gibraltarian who has shown the troll-like characteristics, such as posting the same information over and over again, personal attacks, etc. Please take this case. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by uninvolved party FayssalF

I had a few interactions with edits of both users. I must say that Gibraltarian uses personal attacks most of the time when dealing with Ecemaml. I am very active in Spain and noticed many of these cases taking place (i.e. Go away as an edit summary) [3]. I tried to invite both parties to hold a discussion to solve the case Talk:Spain#Edit warring. There, again, Gibraltarian proved that he shows no respect to his/her co-editors Hahahaha, get a life!, You are an obsessed troll!... Cheers -- Svest 23:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

• Accept. Fred Bauder 15:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Accept (for behaviour, not NPOV, of course). James F. (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 17:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Accept and un-recuse. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

[edit] Principles

[edit] Disruptive editors may be banned

1) Users who edit a set of articles in a disruptive way may be banned from editing those articles.

Passed 7-0 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

2) Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Passed 7-0 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is the set of articles which involve the question of the contested sovereignty over Gibraltar.

Passed 7-0 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contestants

2) Contestants are Ecemaml (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Gibraltarian (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Gibraltarian advocates the viewpoint of the citizens of Gibraltar; Ecemaml that of the Spanish government.

Passed 7-0 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point of view editing by Gibraltrian

3) Gibraltrian has engaged in point of view editing [4] and sterile edit warring, often over Template:Disputed, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence#First_assertion.

Passed 7-0 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks by Gibraltarian

4) Gibraltarian (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has frequently made personal attacks, see User_talk:Ecemaml#Drop_your_obsession, [5], [6], and many examples at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence#Second_assertion.

Passed 7-0 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltarian blocked indefinitely

5) From the block log: 20:43, December 16, 2005 Woohookitty blocked "User:Gibraltarian" with an expiry time of indefinite (for continued personal attacks, disruption and incivility. he is now using sockpuppets to violate the 3RR literally daily).

Passed 7-0 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

6) Following his block Gibraltarian has used sockpuppets such as Gibo1 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Gib1 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Yanito (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), GBZ (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Calpe (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Tobaila (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Stand-up-Speak-up (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Gibo (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Gibo2 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Gibo3 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Gibo4 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Gib2 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Gib3 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Gib4 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Infidel1 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Infidel2 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Infidel3 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Infidel4 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), GBZ1 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Rockape (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), and Rockape1 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) have been created as sleeper accounts to defeat semi-protection. Ranges 212.120.224.0/24, 212.120.225.0/24, 212.120.226.0/24, 212.120.227.0/24, 212.120.228.0/24, 212.120.229.0/24, 212.120.230.0/24, and 212.120.231.0/24.

Passed 7-0 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Affected articles

7) Disputed status of Gibraltar, History of Gibraltar, and Gibraltar and a few others are the most affected pages.

Passed 7-0 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of Arbitration-only pages

8) During this case and while blocked, Gibraltarian (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has used anonymous accounts to continue his threats and attacks on this Arbitration page.

Passed 6-0 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Gibraltarian placed on personal attack parole

1) Gibraltarian (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is placed on personal attack parole. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator if he engages in personal attacks, up to a day in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Passed 7-0 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltarian placed on probation

2) Gibraltarian is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any article or talk page relating to Gibraltar which he disrupts. Bans shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. This remedy may be extended by any three administrators for good cause shown.

Passed 7-0 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltarian placed on general Probation

3) Gibraltarian is placed on indefinite Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Passed 7-0 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No action on indefinite block

4) No action is taken regarding the current indefinite block. The remedies in this decision take affect if any administrator unblocks him for any reason; counting of blocks for the purpose of enforcement commences at that point. It is recommended that no one unblock him in the absence of a promise by him to comply with this decision.

Passed 7-0 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

5) The actions of all users reasonably believed, based on IP used or style of editing, to be sockpuppets of Gibraltarian shall be attributed to him and charged to his account.

Passed 8-1 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) If Gibraltarian (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) violates any probation or parole remedy he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be one year. Blocks and bans should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Passed 6-0 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Log of blocks and bans

Since the conclusion of this arbitration, Gibraltarian has continued to vandalise and edit-war on a range of articles using a number of anonymous IP addresses and sockpuppets. The sockpuppets are being blocked systematically as they appear. See Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Blocked User:Gibraltarian for further information. -- ChrisO 18:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Six-month update: Gibraltarian is continuing to carry out vandalism, mostly of History of Gibraltar and also posting personal attacks to Talk:Racism. He is continuing to use anonymous IP addresses in the 212.120.*.* range on an often daily basis. His obsessive misconduct shows no sign of improvement. -- ChrisO 00:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)